Federal courts jack up fees for online access by 25 percent

The US federal courts are raising fees for PACER, their system for online …

The federal courts announced on Tuesday that they would be increasing fees for accessing public court records by 25 percent, from 8¢ per page to 10¢ per page. Most Americans have never heard of PACER, the website the federal courts use to distribute judicial records. But for thousands of journalists, academics, and practicing attorneys, news of the fee hike produced a collective groan.

The courts emphasize that they haven't raised PACER fees since 2005, when they increased the fee from 7¢ to 8¢ per page. But with rising usage, revenues had been growing anyway. With the new increase, PACER revenues will likely exceed $100 million per year.

An IT slush fund

What do the courts do with all that money? In 2007, a judicial committee reported that "significant unobligated balances have accumulated" as a result of growing PACER usage. It proposed to use the extra funds for various IT projects.

One example is a courtroom renovation one judge described at a 2010 conference. He said that as a result of PACER fees, "every juror has their own flatscreen monitors," and there are also monitors for members of the public to see. His courtroom also got the latest audio technology. "We just put in new audio so that people—I'd never heard of this before—but it actually embeds the speakers inside of the benches in the back of the courtroom and inside counsel tables so that the wood benches actually perform as amplifiers," the judge said.

It's great for courtrooms to have better A/V technologies. But diverting PACER fees to projects unrelated to PACER may be illegal. Harlan Yu, an open government expert at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, points to the 2002 law authorizing the PACER fees, which states that those fees may be charged "only to the extent necessary" to cover the costs of providing public access. Congress "sought to have a system in which the information is 'freely available to the greatest extent possible,'" he told Ars, quoting from the conference report that accompanied the legislation.

Trimming the fat

Yu said there's lots of room for cost-cutting. With private-sector IT costs dropping, "it seems unreasonable for the courts to be raising costs," he said. Instead, "the courts need to rethink how PACER is built."

For example, there isn't just one PACER website for the whole country. Instead, there are actually around 200 separate PACER websites, each serving a different judicial district. Consolidating those 200 servers into a single website hosted from a modern data center would improve the user experience and dramatically reduce IT costs.

Indeed, Yu argued that the very concept of charging for copies of public records is misguided. He suggested that instead of jacking up fees in order to fund the development of a more elaborate PACER site, the courts should publish their raw data and allow private parties, from Google to the Internet Archive, to build websites using that data.

"Congress needs to consider funding PACER out of general appropriations," Yu told Ars. "It's really shutting people out from being able to learn the laws that they need to abide by in our society." Of course, if PACER were run in a cost-effective matter, and without a paywall, it would cost a lot less than $100 million.

Disclosure: Yu and I were colleagues at Princeton, where we collaborated on the RECAP project to liberate court records from PACER.

45 Reader Comments

The government (federal and state) is very inefficient (some would call it wasteful) at just about everything they try to do. The key to efficiency and reducing federal spending is to narrow the scope of the work as much as possible and then contract it out.

Working for a law firm I can say that PACER is also a pile of garbage that still looks and feels like it was designed in the 90's.

I second this and add the following:

Previously working for court systems, I can say that there is a huge amount of waste in IT spending. One example is employees make unreasonable requests for equipment and the IT departments are in no position to deny them. That's just once facet, I could (and won't) name many others. However, once a revenue stream has been justified, it will be very difficult to remove or even reduce.

They really should. Google, MS, and anyone else who has the resources to legitimately give it a go. There is a near zero chance that a government run custom IT project will ever be anything more than "usable, mostly".

PACER is annoying, true, it nickel and dimes you over everything. But on the other hand, it funds something that otherwise our taxes would pay for, and we all know that the government's usually broke. I don't care if they run a surplus, as long as the excess goes towards legitimate public uses. I really don't think privatizing government IT is a good idea. We have tinfoil hat kooks on here every day of the week who truly believe that our judges are being given lamborghinis in exchange for finding in favor of copyright holders, for example. That kind of nonsense would only get worse if we had a public document repository run by Google or Microsoft. No thanks. Also, I actually kind of like the interface - it feels so quaint, like the web circa the late 90's before the attack of gradients and flash ads.

PACER (and the individual court sites) are useless unless you're the one who is filing something or searching for a specific case, party, or attorney. It's not supposed to be a comprehensive court filing search engine -- Lexis and Westlaw have pretty much cornered the market on that and actually index the court filings for searches. It's also not supposed to be a tool for educating people about the laws; it's an electronic case management and document filing system. Google has a "Google Scholar" site that includes legal opinions and even has rudimentary KeyCite/Shepardization functionality. I'm a lawyer and sometimes use if for quick searches.

As for courtroom technology, smaller districts (like the D.R.I. cited in the article) get the latest technology first simply because it's easier to scale and test. In contrast, the Central District of California -- which has 60 judges in three courthouses -- JUST got electronic filing capabilities a couple of years ago. It's still unreliable enough that we have to deliver hard copies of filings directly to the judges.

It's also not supposed to be a tool for educating people about the laws; it's an electronic case management and document filing system. Google has a "Google Scholar" site that includes legal opinions and even has rudimentary KeyCite/Shepardization functionality. I'm a lawyer and sometimes use if for quick searches.

Oh bummer, guess one can't get out with a "ignorance is an excuse..." then.

It's also not supposed to be a tool for educating people about the laws; it's an electronic case management and document filing system.

This is false. You're thinking of Court Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which (as the name implies) is the part of the court's website where people do case management and electronic case filing. PACER stands for Public Access to Electronic Court Records, and as the name implies it's designed for members of the public (including practicing attorneys, but also journalists, academics, and anyone else who's interested) to access court records. If it's too hard for the general public to use, that's a failure of the courts.

Westlaw and LexisNexis are fine systems, but they're way too expensive for most citizens to use. And why should two private companies control access to public records?

As egotistical as some judges can be, fat chance getting the web sites consolidated. Fat chance in them giving up a monetary source to renovate their courtrooms, too. It's there. It's been taking in money. They're not going to lower how much it charges, only increase it.

That said, the idea of charging access fees to pay for PACER and the IT around it seems a bit off. You have the double issue of 1) A monopoly on the distribution of the documents and 2) Governments tend to never turn off revenue, and always look to increase it.

It shouldn't be used as a source of revenue for government, especially not as a resource to be used by the same people that can raise the PACER price. That's a bad precedent.

If those other IT projects are worthwhile, we should collect the money through regular taxes to pay for it.

I always got ONE free copy of PACER documents, but perhaps that was because I was at a law firm and we were involved in the cases? Perhaps they could consider giving journalists a similar privileges.

From the pacer.gov website: "By Judicial Conference policy, if your usage does not exceed $10 in a quarter, fees for that quarter are waived, effectively making the service free for most users."

So if you download less than 125 pages it is free.

Does this mean that if an enterprising group were to organize/setup a website encouraging people to download sections of documents 125 pages at a time and then provide a webpage for uploading to a central, publicly accessible repository, we could get around PACER?

PACER and its filing counterpart, ECF, are antiquated and frustating systems to be sure. They could certainly be replaced with a centralized (and more searchable) system for, I suspect, little to no additional cost beyond the status quo. Indeed, there would probably be a cost savings.

That said, it should at least be noted that the costs of accessing information over PACER are relatively cheap. First, from an educational standpoint, judicial opinions are usually regarded as the most important records generated in legal proceedings. Opinions are free to download on PACER. Also, if a document is more than 30 pages, you are only charged for the first 30 pages. So if you want a filing, like a pleading, the most that you'll pay for it is $2.40, even if it runs to over 100 pages (though I note that many parties file exhibits as separate documents).

Anyway, PACER should be replaced with a better system and there's no reason to think that it couldn't be done quite easily. If it were available to sites like Google for indexing, another huge benefit is that the many PDF files that are either scanned or were not created with embedded text could be OCR'd and made (mostly) searchable as well. And I'm not entirely sure how I feel about PACER generating a slush fund as a result of the fees that they charge.

But if someone has some interest in a particular case or proceeding, the cost to an individual for using PACER is going to be trivial in almost all instances. The concerns about PACER fees have relatively little to do with access to justice or education, IMO, and far more to do with administrative convenience, ease of use, and better informational characteristics (faster, easier access and more searchability).

From the pacer.gov website: "By Judicial Conference policy, if your usage does not exceed $10 in a quarter, fees for that quarter are waived, effectively making the service free for most users."

So if you download less than 125 pages it is free.

Does this mean that if an enterprising group were to organize/setup a website encouraging people to download sections of documents 125 pages at a time and then provide a webpage for uploading to a central, publicly accessible repository, we could get around PACER?

Yes.

In a way, Bloomberg already does this, although you need to pay a subscription to access their legal database tools. Bloomberg has an interface to pull documents directly from PACER. If you go to a docket and the filing of interest has never been downloaded by a Bloomberg user, they pass through the PACER costs to your account when you access the document. But for any Bloomberg user thereafter, that document will be free because Bloomberg archives it.

Or judges locking up non-violent drug offending juveniles with other violent offenders in Pennsylvania for millions in kickbacks from their jail owning cronies, resulting in teenagers killing themselves... you mean those kind of tinfoil hat wearers right.

@ayemahnuhrd ''We have tinfoil hat kooks on here every day of the week who truly believe that our judges are being given lamborghinis in exchange for finding in favor of copyright holders, for example.''

Or judges locking up non-violent drug offending juveniles with other violent offenders in Pennsylvania for millions in kickbacks from their jail owning cronies, resulting in teenagers killing themselves... you mean those kind of tinfoil hat wearers right.

@ayemahnuhrd ''We have tinfoil hat kooks on here every day of the week who truly believe that our judges are being given lamborghinis in exchange for finding in favor of copyright holders, for example.''

Or judges locking up non-violent drug offending juveniles with other violent offenders in Pennsylvania for millions in kickbacks from their jail owning cronies, resulting in teenagers killing themselves... you mean those kind of tinfoil hat wearers right.

WTFU!!!

Oh, did you want a reply? A corruption case in which a state judge was properly convicted, sentenced, and went to jail? Are you implying that ALL federal judges are corrupt as a result and that our justice system is completely bought and paid for by the participants? If our system was that corrupt, he wouldn't have been convicted genius. And yes, that makes you one of the card-carrying, bonified tin-foil hat types who I'm talking about who think every judge is bought and every case unfair. Thanks for the illustration. By the way, do the many cases described on here about how various federal judges stand up to the copyright industry in the interest of the people and in defense of the Constitution slip by you somehow? There have been like 100 in the last two weeks, so... maybe read more. Just sayin.

Before you do too much government bashing, the FCC has totally revamped their website to the point where the average Joe or Jane can use it. They also saved their old cluster-F website for people who know how to deal with it.

The PACER deal is way more cost effective than dealing with the FAA. The FAA registration data is $10 a CD. Yes, they mail you a CD.

The government (federal and state) is very inefficient (some would call it wasteful) at just about everything they try to do. The key to efficiency and reducing federal spending is to narrow the scope of the work as much as possible and then contract it out.

Not so long ago I had the experience of going to the Orange County Courthouse, clicking on a bunch of pdf files, printing them, paying $1 a page for the printing, coming home, scanning them to create pdfs, and emailing them to my lawyer. Anyone see how that could have been optimized? anyone, anyone? lol

Before you do too much government bashing, the FCC has totally revamped their website to the point where the average Joe or Jane can use it. They also saved their old cluster-F website for people who know how to deal with it.

The PACER deal is way more cost effective than dealing with the FAA. The FAA registration data is $10 a CD. Yes, they mail you a CD.

Remember when some federal agencies use to deliver on magnetic tape? Ah the good old days.

It should be turned into a federal non profit with a mandate to provide access to all documents. It is never a good idea to give a monopoly to a corporation unless it is a non-profit with a tight mandate. Why is this money being used for equipment in the courts?

I've used Pacer extensively for personal use (no, I'm not a lawyer.), and I must say that if one knows how to use it, it can be valuable-but it does take a certain knowledge to be able to search it effectively for what information one needs. It is very confusing if you do not know what you're looking for, or where it is in the system. I spent many hours looking for things that should have been more easily accessible.If only they would use the increased fees to clean up the organization of it, then they would be justified to raise them.But it's still a bargain when you realize that unless you are a lawyer, it's the closest you will get to personally view case documents as they go live.Many defendants in the federal system literally depend on Pacer to get them the paperwork they need to do their casework with (via an intermediary, of course), and it's because it's the only thing out there for those who cannot afford a lawyer to do it for them.So, yes, it is invaluable, when you look at it from the other side of the table.By the way, the reason the access to PACER is restricted is that for the most part, the documents are for Federal criminal cases, and the information from them is very sensitive for those that they are about for people who do not have the reason or right to view them. Defendants do not need Joe Blow knowing the intricate details of their criminal proceedings to the 'x' factor unless there is a very compelling reason.

It's also not supposed to be a tool for educating people about the laws; it's an electronic case management and document filing system.

This is false. You're thinking of Court Management and Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which (as the name implies) is the part of the court's website where people do case management and electronic case filing. PACER stands for Public Access to Electronic Court Records, and as the name implies it's designed for members of the public (including practicing attorneys, but also journalists, academics, and anyone else who's interested) to access court records. If it's too hard for the general public to use, that's a failure of the courts.Westlaw and LexisNexis are fine systems, but they're way too expensive for most citizens to use. And why should two private companies control access to public records?

PACER is one of the few systems that has access to current cases. Lexis and Westlaw deal with appellate cases. PACER is famous for its 80s feel and be careful for overcharges in search queries. If the systems brings a report of 700 pages, do not agree to it or you will be charged $7.00. Beginners think that they can find a certain case by searching many many pages of cases and it will cost you.

They should be charging what it costs to host and offer the documents and nothing more. What the hell gives them the right to profit off of these documents?

Its the state of our current government. Get money from programs that earn revenue to pay for programs that drain the money pool. Screw the public, they don't have a right to view current cases cheaply anyway.

The government (federal and state) is very inefficient (some would call it wasteful) at just about everything they try to do. The key to efficiency and reducing federal spending is to narrow the scope of the work as much as possible and then contract it out.

Studies disagree with you.

Who does those studies. News flash.... the government tends to be very inefficient. There are exceptions, but the court system is not one of those exceptions.

@ayemahnuhrd ''We have tinfoil hat kooks on here every day of the week who truly believe that our judges are being given lamborghinis in exchange for finding in favor of copyright holders, for example.'' Or judges locking up non-violent drug offending juveniles with other violent offenders in Pennsylvania for millions in kickbacks from their jail owning cronies, resulting in teenagers killing themselves... you mean those kind of tinfoil hat wearers right. WTFU!!!

Oh, did you want a reply? A corruption case in which a state judge was properly convicted, sentenced, and went to jail? Are you implying that ALL federal judges are corrupt as a result and that our justice system is completely bought and paid for by the participants? If our system was that corrupt, he wouldn't have been convicted genius. And yes, that makes you one of the card-carrying, bonified tin-foil hat types who I'm talking about who think every judge is bought and every case unfair. Thanks for the illustration. By the way, do the many cases described on here about how various federal judges stand up to the copyright industry in the interest of the people and in defense of the Constitution slip by you somehow? There have been like 100 in the last two weeks, so... maybe read more. Just sayin.

I know technophelia was not the best poster for pointing out a serious problem with judges but...http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/cr ... ash-schemeYou are right, not all judges are corrupt and the system is not corrupt like let say certain Italian courts. I would argue that there is a serious problem when all the other judges in this PA court system or supervising judges didn't call Judge Ciavarelli on his BS rulings. These types of behavior are indicators of corruption in courts US wide. Not turning a corrupt judge in for corruption is corruption itself. Too many judges are turning a blind eye to bad decisions, unprofessional courtroom behavior, and blatant bad judges. This article screams wasting money to fund other programs that could not be funded by legitimately telling taxpayers what the money is for. What taxpayer would approve surround sound for a court? its fraud, waste, and abuse as we used to call it in government service.

I would argue that there is a serious problem when all the other judges in this PA court system or supervising judges didn't call Judge Ciavarelli on his BS rulings. These types of behavior are indicators of corruption in courts US wide. Not turning a corrupt judge in for corruption is corruption itself. Too many judges are turning a blind eye to bad decisions, unprofessional courtroom behavior, and blatant bad judges. This article screams wasting money to fund other programs that could not be funded by legitimately telling taxpayers what the money is for. What taxpayer would approve surround sound for a court? its fraud, waste, and abuse as we used to call it in government service.

No, this is a horrific one-time incident of abuse and it was appropriately punished by the federal justice system enforced against a state judge. You've got absolutely no proof that this one incident equates to 'types of behavior' that has anything to do with the 'US wide' system. For one, this was PA state court with elected judges, a completely different, separate system than the truly US-wide federal system of appointed judges. So your assumption that this is systemic somehow breaks down immediately, but I don't think you can even go further than his own department, maybe. State systems are pretty insular based on their own counties. Basically, what you're suggesting is silly. Making wild generalizations from one incident is the type of over the top unsupported nonsense that annoys me on these forums. Do you even know how many cases are going on every day? Its vast, but these horrific daytime talk show stories are relatively rare. Be intellectually serious.

"Indeed, Yu argued that the very concept of charging for copies of public records is misguided. He suggested that instead of jacking up fees in order to fund the development of a more elaborate PACER site, the courts should publish their raw data and allow private parties, from Google to the Internet Archive, to build websites using that data."

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Get the data out there as cheaply/efficiently as possible, let somebody else store it, analyze it, put a UI on it, etc.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.